AuthorTopic: Pete Best (Read 38505 times)

Many people say that when Ringo arrived, the Beatles were complete. They basically say that Ringo was indispensable and that, perhaps, the Beatles ascent to glory was now unimpeded. This implies that Pete was an obstacle in their path to fame and fortune.

How could they risk firing him without also jeopardizing their own success? Could they really have been absolutely sure that Pete was nonessential and that Ringo would automatically receive widespread acceptance (which he did)?

You make it sound like they were a poltical party running for office.I'm not the first to say "it's only the bl**dy drummer." I doubt whether they went through that kind of thought process, or that they would have seen past the fact that they had to find a recording contract, and if that meant dumping your mate, then so be it. I think J & P would have seen themselves as the only essential members, with G a close second. Drummer schrummer. Beatleworld didn't collapse when Jimmy Nichol took over. In fact, I put it to you that if Ringo had not come back the Beatle bandwagon would have rolled on regardless.

Beatleworld didn't collapse when Jimmy Nichol took over. In fact, I put it to you that if Ringo had not come back the Beatle bandwagon would have rolled on regardless.

Being that it was in 64' at the height of the groups popularity, I might be inclined to agree. If we were talking 66' or so after they quit touring, I dont think so. Ringo was embedded by then plus the fact i'm sure he helped in keeping the ego's intact.

You make it sound like they were a poltical party running for office.I'm not the first to say "it's only the bl**dy drummer." I doubt whether they went through that kind of thought process, or that they would have seen past the fact that they had to find a recording contract, and if that meant dumping your mate, then so be it. I think J & P would have seen themselves as the only essential members, with G a close second. Drummer schrummer. Beatleworld didn't collapse when Jimmy Nichol took over. In fact, I put it to you that if Ringo had not come back the Beatle bandwagon would have rolled on regardless.

Man, I hate to have to agree with this, but you're right. How many tours have been called to a halt because a member of the band is sick? Not many. Jimmy came in did his job, the tour went on, and no problem. If Charlie Watts was sick (and I'm glad he's in remission), there's no way the Stones would tour. Pete got dumped due to the chemistry of the band-not to mention Brian Epstein's whatever. Ringo fit in, but for the first few years, he was worried that they were 'pulling a Pete' -which sounds completely different than was meant, but that he could be replaced in an instant. Who could blame him? George Martin bringing in a session musician to play that incredibly intricate 'Love Me Do'. "Here Ritchie, have a tambourine".

The schedule has just been announced for the Pete Best and the Pete Best Band summer tour which begins July 28th in Clearwater Florida and ends August 11th at the Fest for Beatles Fans in Chicago.Performing the songs the Beatles were playing from 1960-1962, the Pete Best Band delivers the raw, thumping intensity of the Beatles' savage sound of the early sixties. Right from the first beat, you'll feel you're at the Casbah Club, in the Cavern or hanging out in Hamburg. During the show, Pete also comes out from behind the drum kit to treat the audience to anecdotes about those early days with John, Paul, George and Stu Sutcliffe. Of those years, John Lennon said, "We were at our best when we were playing in the dance halls of Liverpool and Hamburg. The world never saw that." Here's when and where Pete Best and the Pete Best Band will be performing this summer:

I'm going to try to hit the 'Fest in Chicago this year, and will probably check out Pete for a few. Probably the most dour person I've ever met. If he does Beatles music, which I'm sure he does, I hope it's the stuff they did in Hamburg and the Casbah, etc., and not anything from the 'Post Pete' era.

I have to add something to my previous comments because it's bothered and puzzled me for a long time. John Lennon once made the remark that without the 4 of them as they were the Beatles would not have existed. This seems to suggest that Ringo was absolutely essential to the band's widespread approval and success. I just have a hard time believing this. How could a drummer be that important? The Beatles were already incredibly popular with Pete in the drummer's seat. This fact seems to contradict Lennon's supposition. Yet I am puzzled because a number of authors have said that the Beatles really came to life after Ringo joined. The tone, spirit and zest of their recorded music shifted into high gear and into the stratosphere when Ringo began executing his stickings. Can this really be true - that without Ringo, the Beatles wouldn't have been as big as they were?

I've also read that the Beatles had asked other drummers to replace Pete. If Ringo were considered the one and only, then why wasn't he the one and only one they asked? And why did it take them so long to dump Pete if he was not a good enough drummer and didn't smile enough for them? What were they waiting for?

Poor Pete - any other band and who would have cared? But he had to miss out on being in the greatest band of all time. Otherwise, the reasons for being booted out wouldn't have mattered at all. He would have gone on with his life no worse for wear.

I used to play in bands long ago and I remember firings were common and bone cold. There was little or no finesse or consideration of feelings shown. Pretty crude matter-of-fact stuff, it was. No apologies, if someone didn't like you and they carried enough clout, you were out. I think the Beatles saw Pete in their way with George Martin and the Parlophone recordings and, boom, that was it. A cold and unceremonious death for Pete. Yep, they said the Bs were ruthless, but how many of us would have acted differently considering a coveted recording contract and the all absorbing desire to get ahead in the music trade?

I think Pete needs to just get over himself. Okay, so he was sacked, and they weren't very nice about it, but still, that was over 40 years ago. If he wants to continue charging for autographs and giving bitter interviews, then so be it. But he's just making money off of SOMEONE ELSE'S success!

Pete has often asked what the real reason was for his firing out of the number which have been proposed. I think the most salient reason is George Martin's comment that Pete wasn't a good enough drummer. That is really what killed him.

Consider this, the Beatles were desparate for a recording contract and everyone else prior had turned them down. This seemed like the last chance for them. Although Martin said it wasn't a problem in that he could sub Pete with a session drummer, I'm sure the Beatles had other thoughts.

First of all, they were a live concert band at the time. If Pete couldn't back them on studio recordings, then how would he faithfully rendition their songs live? They couldn't use the session drummer live just so they could get the tune right. Bottom line, the B's wanted their drummer to be a credible presence both live and in the studio. This is truly the most compelling reason for Pete's canning.

Pete couldn't play "Love me do." Listen to the Anthology recording. He struggled with that. He couldn't find the beat and tried to play the accenting of it instead. It just didn't work. It felt too forced and stilted. I speak from my own experience as a drummer in my younger days. For a guy who's used to 4 to the floor, "Love me do" was confusing and challenging. Pete needed a simple soft back beat. He'd should have pulled out his brushes. He might have made it. If he had, who knows how much longer he could have lasted with them?

They were other challenging tunes ahead. Could Pete have provided the excellent backing that Ringo did for "Please please me?" The Beatles catalogue was not simply straightforward rock and roll. It was really a mix of the past and present styles of music. You'd have to have been a really versatile drummer to successfully complement the Beatles' wide range of musical diversity.

As far as Pete goes, all I can say is "Let it be, yeah, let it be, whisper words of wisdom, let it be."

it's funny because if it was r e m it wouldn't have happened but i think the deep south still can't accept the british invasion...they still love country down there...no wonder they call them crackers...no thats not the real reason i know...but it sure is funnier than the real reason...

The excellent BEST OF THE BEATLES DVD from PETE BEST will finally be released in the UK on October 2nd, but with a slightly different title - PETE BEST OF THE BEATLES "The Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Story Never Told".The DVD features interviews with original fans and friends of the BEST family, together with the earliest known colour footage of THE BEATLES - a must for all fans!---> Well, that's what the producer says. Any recommendation from DM's?

i would be willing to bet there was less guilt with slicing bread....even tho he was cut out he was probally better off....they snuck around his back discussing him...and decided he had too go...groups make decsions together after all and if one is excluded then he is not of the group....